IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS CIVIL CASES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court approved recommended revisions to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Civil), including a supplement on the believability of expert witnesses and a new comment regarding damages for a parent's loss of a child's services and earning capacity.
The Court approved the recommended changes for publication, including a new section 2.2b addressing expert witnesses and a new comment to instruction 6.2f. The Court noted that the Committee's comments reflect only the Committee's opinion and are not necessarily indicative of the Court's views on their correctness or applicability.
[1] A court may approve revisions to standard jury instructions recommended by the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil).
[2] Jury instructions may include provisions for the believability of expert witnesses, allowing the jury to accept, reject, or weigh such testimony based on the witness's qu…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We approve for publication the recommended changes which follow this opinion. We caution that the comments reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability.”
Establishes that the Court approved the revisions but clarified that Committee comments do not necessarily reflect the Court's position on all substantive legal issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) submitted recommendations for revisions to existing jury instructions, specifically …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Expert Testimony Weight cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) recommends the following revisions to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Civil): A Supplement to SJI 2.2, Believability of Witnesses, and a new comment to 6.2f [.Damages for ] Parent’s Loss of Child’s Services, Earning, Earning Capacity.
We approve for publication the recommended changes which follow this opinion. We caution that the comments reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability-
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur. BELIEVABILITY OF WITNESSES
Redesignate 2.2 as 2.2a General Considerations and add the following 2.2b Expert witnesses:
b. Expert witnesses:
[You have heard opinion testimony [on certain technical subjects] from [a person] [persons] referred to as [an] expert witnesses].] [Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions about certain technical subjects.]
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
Delete existing comment 1 and substitute:
1. Expert witness. See § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (1985), and Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1964). The court will select one or the other introductory sentence in keeping with the court’s practice and preference in announcing before the jury, or acceding to counsel’s characterization, that a tendered witness is an “expert.”
Add the following Comment following 6.2f:
Comment on 6.2f
The Committee expresses no opinion concerning whether there also is a cause of action for a parent’s recovery due to loss of a child’s companionship and society. Compare Yordan v. Savage, 279 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1973), citing Wilkie v. Roberts, 91 Fla. 1064, 109 So. 225 (1926), with language in Wilkie and other cases interpreting Wilkie, including Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1956); City Stores Co. v. Langer, 308 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dism., 312 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1975); Hillsborough County School Board v. Perez, 385 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); and Brown v. Caldwell, 389 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burden v. Robert J. Dickman Ad Litem of Adam Paul Burden, 547 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…os, 449 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (Florida recognizes right of parent to sue for loss of companionship of minor child wrongfully injured), rev’d on other grounds, 467 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1985), but cf. In re Standard Jury Instructions Civil Cases, 503 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1987), and cases cited therein. . The $1,000,000 award to Adam is inextricably bound up with the $1,500,000 award to the Burdens on Adam’s behalf. Exhaustion of the latter award prior to Adam’s majority would inevitably force an application f…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1964)
- Am. Cont'l, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1956)
- Wilkie v. Holstead Roberts, 91 Fla. 1064 (Fla. 1926)
- Yordon v. Savage, 279 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1973)
- City Stores Co. v. Langer, 308 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Jerrie Douglas Brown v. Caldwell, 389 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Perez, 385 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Chambers v. State, 312 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1975)
- Weatherington v. Thomas A. Crowl (Employee-Claimant), 312 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1975)